{"title":"Efficacy of evaluation of audiometric results by Amsterdam Hearing Evaluation Plots after stapes surgery","authors":"Kyoko Kitaoka, Kensuke Hatachi, Haruo Yoshida, Haruo Takahashi","doi":"10.5106/JJSHNS.27.289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many Japanese reports use the Japanese Otological Society (JOS) criteria 2000 or 1987 for evaluating the results of stapes surgery. The advantage of Amsterdam Hearing Evaluation Plots (AHEPs), reported by J. G. De Bruijn for the evaluation of hearing gain, is the ability to evaluate hearing gain with overclosure and higher frequency hearing. In this report, we compared postoperative results using the JOS criteria and AHEPs, and found no difference between them. However, by using AHEPs, we found we could discriminate excellent cases among good cases. We also found that cases showing a low density area in the retrofenestral region on the CT tended to have poorer postoperative results ; this was not revealed when we used the JOS criteria. We consider AHEPs to be a suitable method for detailed evaluation of otosclerosis.","PeriodicalId":276583,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Japan Society for Head and Neck Surgery","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Japan Society for Head and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5106/JJSHNS.27.289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Many Japanese reports use the Japanese Otological Society (JOS) criteria 2000 or 1987 for evaluating the results of stapes surgery. The advantage of Amsterdam Hearing Evaluation Plots (AHEPs), reported by J. G. De Bruijn for the evaluation of hearing gain, is the ability to evaluate hearing gain with overclosure and higher frequency hearing. In this report, we compared postoperative results using the JOS criteria and AHEPs, and found no difference between them. However, by using AHEPs, we found we could discriminate excellent cases among good cases. We also found that cases showing a low density area in the retrofenestral region on the CT tended to have poorer postoperative results ; this was not revealed when we used the JOS criteria. We consider AHEPs to be a suitable method for detailed evaluation of otosclerosis.
许多日本报告使用日本耳科学会(JOS) 2000年或1987年的标准来评估镫骨手术的结果。由J. G. De Bruijn报道的阿姆斯特丹听力评估图(Amsterdam Hearing Evaluation Plots, AHEPs)的优势在于能够评估过闭和高频听力的听力增益。在本报告中，我们使用JOS标准和AHEPs比较了术后结果，发现两者之间没有差异。然而，我们发现使用AHEPs可以区分优秀案例和优秀案例。我们还发现，在CT上显示窗后区域低密度区域的病例往往术后结果较差;当我们使用JOS标准时，这并没有显示出来。我们认为AHEPs是详细评价耳硬化的合适方法。
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
